shurlock

Living in dreamland to think otherwise.

How is the statement I made incorrect - because that's how I've heard it used. Its as a clear as day but you're fumbling in the dark. I was unaware of that website; compared to the deliberate, mendacious whoppers the out campaign were telling, it seems to be an innocent case of double-counting. I didn't realise the UK didn't have any under-15s it was a shorthand figure that, most importantly, was applied evenhandedly both to the UK and EU. With those groundrules established, a population of 53m (excluding under 15s) in the UK trades with a population of 370m in the EU (excluding the UK and under-15s), that market is still ~7x the UK market, not significantly lower than the ~7.8x (500:64) that you're getting your knickers in a twist over. Big deal. Principle stands. If you want to get technical and talk about saving and consumption behavoiur across different age groups rather your cute little effort you seem proud of we can do; or if you want to talk about gravity trade models and decades of empirical research that show how trade falls starkly with distance and singlehandedly undermine most of the dimwitted, wishful little nostrums of the out campaign that the UK PLC can look outwards and trade with the rest of the world, we can do but I worry I'll be accused of patronising you pal. #tiredofexperts

I am not aware of many people arguing that. What I heard, especially in the context of doing deals with the rest of the world, is that on paper the UK would be a more attractive trade partner if it was part of single market of 500m than if it was out as a market of 60m. Again that's not factually incorrect.

That's not the point and remainers have argued something very different. Its factually correct to say that the UK is either part of a single market of 500m or outside it as a market of 60m.

Dunno but I certainly get that impression from you.

UKTI Have you ever dealt with them? Organising trade fairs for SMEs is about their comfort zone. Got a chip on your shoulder about your education, don't you pal?

Its a bit more complicated pal. If you've followed the primaries closely (obviously you haven't), you'll have noted that there has been hardening on both sides against free trade. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e3451d6-37a7-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#axzz4CmlHTiTJ "Free trade will not have an ally in the White House next year"

No problem

No we don't. We may know what was paid upfront or over time; but none of the performance-based fees are known.

Who knows. We still don't know what Man U paid exactly for Luke Shaw - some claim its £27/28m, others say its £30m; others think its £31.5m. All of those figures are consistent with us receiving a record-breaking fee but receiving lower than the figure quoted in the the thread title; and two of those are consistent with a record-fee but a figure that's much closer to Liverpool's claims.

So? Could just be cheap talk. No different from what Liverpool are saying.

Johnneh, many of those remarks are just mom-and-apple pie statements about how the US wants a tradiing relationship with the UK. Who doesn't? Obama never said he didn't.

I didn't realise the UK had no say in the number of non-EU migrants that came to the UK.

Absolute genius

Sterling and Spurs bottlejobs

Woeful

jesus christ kane

Portugal too

Rooney's been dreadful so far.

Same old smalling

Rooney doing what he does best-scoring against minnows. 1-1

So the same day Bojo the Clown claims markets are stabilised, the UK has its credit rating cut and the pound hits a 31-year low.

That's very out of touch. The leading lights of the leave campaign were conservatives, Brexit is a decades-long conservative obsession and the new PM and reshuffled conservative government will likely be a brexiter. Abesent a snap election and surprising defeat, any **** will happen on the conservatives watch.

Shout for the golden boot?